The statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act supports the validity of promissory notes unless sufficiently rebutted, placing the burden on the defendant to prove contrary claims.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Appeal Suit is directed against the judgement and decree dated 28.04.2022 passed in O.S.No.9 of 2019 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Vellore at Ranipet.

2. The suit for recovery of money is based on two promissory notes for Rs 5,00,000/- each, dated 11.11.2013, with a promise to repay the same with 24% interest on demand. According to the plaintiff, the defendant on 11.07.2016 paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards interest for each of the loans under the pro-notes and thereafter, failed and neglected to discharge the loan inspite of demand. The further case of the plaintiff is that, on 11.11.2013, the defendant also borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- and executed a registered mortgage deed. However, the plaintiff reserves his right to recover the mortgage loan through separate proceedings.

3. The defendant contested the suit claim. According to the defendant, on 11.11.2013 she borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- only from the plaintiff, for which she mortgaged her immovable property and executed a mortgage deed and got it registered. She never borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- by executing two promissory notes on the same day or any other day. She further contended that the pro-notes dated 11.11.2013 and the alleged endorsements on the back of those pro-notes for payment of interest of Rs.2,00,000/- each are fabricated and forged documents. For recovery of the loan advanced against the mortgage, the plaintiff had already instituted suit O.S.No.87 of 2019 and same is pending. The pre-suit notice dated 11.03.2019, for the demand to repay the mortgage loan, does not disclose the present suit pro-notes, though they were allegedly executed on the same day i.e., 11.11.2013, for good and valid consideration. The suit pro-notes and endorsements were fabricated subsequent to the notice dated 11.03.2019. That is the reason why there is no disclosure of the pro-notes in the said notice.

4. To prove this case, the plaintiff had marked the two pro-notes, (Ex.A-1 and Ex A-2), the endorsements for payment of interest on the back of the pro-notes (Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4) and the reply notice of the defendant marked Ex.A-5. The plaintiff and the witness to the pro-notes were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2.

5. On behalf of the defendant, the following documents namely; the notice sent by the plaintiff, plaint copy in O.S.No.87 of 2019, the mortgage deed copy, notice of the defendant to the plaintiff denying the liability and the returned postal cover were marked as Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-5 respectively. The defendant examined as D.W-1.

6. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the documentary and oral evidence, particularly the testimony of P.W-2 (Latha), allowed the suit, holding that the plaintiff is entitled for a money decree of Rs.10,00,000/- with 6% per annum from the date of the suit.

7. The present appeal is filed by the defendant on the ground that the Court below failed to consider the improbability of executing three documents on the same day for the alleged loan transaction. Two promissory notes for Rs.5,00,000/- each and one on mortgage deed for Rs.5,00,000/-. Further, the pro- notes dated 11.11.2013 and the endorsement dated 11.07.2016 is witnessed by the same person, which improbablises the due execution on the dates mentioned in the documents. Further, the plaintiff, in the cross examination had deposed that he paid the amount to the defendant in cash consisting of denomination of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/-. This falsifies the ca